[NIP Wizard] Currently on 9 points - NIP for 57 in 40. Advice? |
[NIP Wizard] Currently on 9 points - NIP for 57 in 40. Advice? |
Sun, 26 Feb 2012 - 21:57
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 26 Feb 2012 Member No.: 53,387 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - June 2011 Date of the NIP: - 67 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 69 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A5103 princess parkway near to the m60 motorway Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - How many current points do you have? - 9 Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - NIP Wizard Responses These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation: Have you received a NIP? - Yes Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - No Was there a valid reason for the NIP's late arrival? - Yes Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes Were you driving? - Yes Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England NIP Wizard Recommendation Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:57:24 +0000 Hello All, Any advice would be dearly appreciated... My 9 points are as follows: PC20 - 03/04/2009 - 3 points SP30 - 18/10/2010 - 3 points SP30 - 09/02/2011 - 3 points I have also attended a driver's awareness course. Most recent speeding fine: 57 in a 40 (assumed penalty of 4-6 points, potential fine and 7-28 ban) Therefore, a 6 month ban is considered 'mandatory' by legal guidelines. I plead guilty to all of the above; with only a new, demanding job being any sort of mitigating circumstances for the 3 speeding offences, but in no way am I, or do I plan to use this to my defence. I accept total responsibility. I am aware of brief legal stipulations surrounding the issue - "Exceptional Hardship" being an area open to potential leniency by the Magistrates. If I am banned for 6 months I will lose my job, but I only have myself to look after and no mortgage. So, as far I can tell my only chance is to plead guilty, accept responsibility and convince the prosecution I have learnt my lesson - albeit belatedly. Would you say this a fair assumption? My court date is 1st March 2012 - I have just found out! - Would you recommend seeking legal advice? Any comments or advice would be dearly appreciated... This post has been edited by MROSS: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 - 22:15 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 26 Feb 2012 - 21:57
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 26 Feb 2012 - 22:02
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
What is the valid reason for the late receipt of the NIP? Were you caught by a camera or what?
If you cannot avoid this offence, your only hope of avoiding a 6 months ban is putting forward a successful exceptional hardship argument, do you know about that? -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 26 Feb 2012 - 23:44
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,496 Joined: 27 Sep 2006 Member No.: 7,899 |
I don't think you have much hope of avoiding the 6 month ban to be honest.
Without wanting to sound sanctimonious, you've had 4 chances to moderate your driving (3 endorsed offences and the awareness course) and you've ignored all of them. Not only that but your latest NIP of 57 in a 40 is hardly "wandering over the limit" As harsh as it sounds "totting up" exists to punish those people who are resolute in not heeding the warnings given by individual offences. Given your driving record would you not say this describes you to a T? |
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 06:13
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,194 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
To claify, you have the car registered in your name, you have the registration document in your possession? Have you just bought the car or moved? How does the docref date relate to the date of the allaged offence?
Other advice, slow the F down! Most people on 9 points (and a course) are driving like Miss Daisy is in the passenger seat. Simon -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 07:11
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 3,238 Joined: 22 Jul 2008 From: South of the border. Member No.: 21,303 |
Ouch! Running a defence on this one is next to impossible but maybe there are some possible angles for a defence. In the circumstances it may not be easy and the court will see any "technical defence" as a challenge to overcome!
There may be a technical defence based on times of NIP and the date of the laying of the information for the summons. If a court date has been set then I presume a summons has been issued. What was the date of the "laying of the information" which should be quoted on the summons? I ask because the time since the alleged offence last June has exceeded 6 months. If the information was laid after 6 months then the prosecution cannot succeed. Similarly if there was no good reason for the NIP to be served on day 68 and the OP can convince the court that the NIP arrived on day 68 (or whenever) then the prosecution cannot be sustained either. OP can you give any more details as to why the NIP was received on day 68? Has the car been purchased recently or have you changed address? Are there any witnesses to the reception on day 68 and not before? "A5103 princess parkway near to the M60 motorway" is a bit "vague". Not sure if it is enough of a "vague location" to have caused any confusion for the OP while preparing his defence case. Good luck! This post has been edited by desktop_demon: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 07:13 -------------------- When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
|
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 10:26
Post
#6
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 26 Feb 2012 Member No.: 53,387 |
Logician - I was caught by a camera & the NIP would have been 'late' due to the car being registered to the company I work for, thus it took some time to reach me.
Durzel - Yes, I agree. Lesson learnt. The Rookie - The car is registered to the company I work for, hence the delay in the NIP. Desktop_demon - I feel if I were to go down the route of a technical defence the prosecution would not be too pleased; after all, I feel it is only right to plead guilty. Concerning 'exceptional hardship' the only grounds I can see to be used are the impact on myself - loss of job. Though it should not be too difficult to get another. And secondly - (and i'm guessing what offers the most hope) - the impact to the company: I am an Area Manager of a supermarket chain, running five stores responsible for nearly 100 staff, directly or indirectly. With all modesty, I cannot be replaced at the drop of a hat. It would takes months or up to a year for the area to get back to where it is now. Is this a reasonable/sensible line of approach? Again, any and every comment appreciated... |
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 10:37
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,194 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes Anything else you want to correct from the first post then? You could get a letter from your company detailing how important you are to the company and how others would suffer if they had to lay you off, noting that if it would genuinely take a year to 'replace you' they would be better off taking you back on when you got your licence back! Simon -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 10:37
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,423 Joined: 15 Apr 2009 From: Winnersh, UK Member No.: 27,840 |
Logician - I was caught by a camera & the NIP would have been 'late' due to the car being registered to the company I work for, thus it took some time to reach me. Durzel - Yes, I agree. Lesson learnt. The Rookie - The car is registered to the company I work for, hence the delay in the NIP. Desktop_demon - I feel if I were to go down the route of a technical defence the prosecution would not be too pleased; after all, I feel it is only right to plead guilty. Concerning 'exceptional hardship' the only grounds I can see to be used are the impact on myself - loss of job. Though it should not be too difficult to get another. And secondly - (and i'm guessing what offers the most hope) - the impact to the company: I am an Area Manager of a supermarket chain, running five stores responsible for nearly 100 staff, directly or indirectly. With all modesty, I cannot be replaced at the drop of a hat. It would takes months or up to a year for the area to get back to where it is now. Is this a reasonable/sensible line of approach? Again, any and every comment appreciated... Hardship to your employer can be used, but as always it is at the discretion of the bench. I would get your management to write a letter stating that they would not be able to employ you without a license (if this is true) and describing how the company (and its employees) would suffer as a result of losing you. Get them to "lay it on with a trowel" without telling untruths. It might work, but no guarantees This post has been edited by I am Weasel: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 10:38 |
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 11:25
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
I think it would take an exceptionally soft bench not to disqualify you in the circumstances you outline, but you may come across one. Good luck!
-------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 11:55
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,529 Joined: 5 May 2011 From: UK Member No.: 46,399 |
QUOTE ......the impact to the company: I am an Area Manager of a supermarket chain, running five stores responsible for nearly 100 staff, directly or indirectly. With all modesty, I cannot be replaced at the drop of a hat. It would takes months or up to a year for the area to get back to where it is now. Is this a reasonable/sensible line of approach? I think you are in for a shock. No-one is irreplaceable and any big company, such as a supermarket chain that took months or a year to effectively replace a single manager is doomed to failure. Don't forget magistrates typically are older and many run their own businesses so this argument will fall on deaf ears. |
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 12:16
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,189 Joined: 8 Feb 2011 From: Gloucestershire Member No.: 44,109 |
How about trying another angle and persuading the bench to give a short ban for this offence? Unlikely I know but maybe worthy of discussion.
-------------------- Edited as my IPhone thinks it knows best and changes my posts…
|
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 12:59
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
How about trying another angle and persuading the bench to give a short ban for this offence? Unlikely I know but maybe worthy of discussion. The bench would be acting against their guidance if they did so: In some cases in which the court is considering discretionary disqualification, the offender may already have sufficient penalty points on his or her licence that he or she would be liable to a ‘totting up’ disqualification if further points were imposed. In these circumstances, the court should impose penalty points rather than discretionary disqualification so that the minimum totting up disqualification period applies I do not see any possible argument against this, the normal result of getting 12 or more points is 6 months disqualification, why should the bench want to avoid that result except on the basis that it would cause exceptional hardship, for which there is a proper procedure? -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 13:22
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,506 Joined: 9 Jan 2008 From: manchester Member No.: 16,521 |
QUOTE ......the impact to the company: I am an Area Manager of a supermarket chain, running five stores responsible for nearly 100 staff, directly or indirectly. With all modesty, I cannot be replaced at the drop of a hat. It would takes months or up to a year for the area to get back to where it is now. Is this a reasonable/sensible line of approach? I think you are in for a shock. No-one is irreplaceable and any big company, such as a supermarket chain that took months or a year to effectively replace a single manager is doomed to failure. Don't forget magistrates typically are older and many run their own businesses so this argument will fall on deaf ears. it can be used as a hardship as it will cost another party a considerable amount of time money abnd inconceince, it can cost upward of 10k to recruit at manager level which these ''business mags'' will know,,,, but agree with sd thats its a bit weak if thats all you have,,, but people on here have used it before with success,, but a letter from your employer supporting this would ne necessarily This post has been edited by jobo: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 13:26 -------------------- jobo
anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year, |
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 14:45
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 306 Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Member No.: 36,927 |
When I was up for a short ban and used an exceptional hardship case, the mags went into every detail on why I needed a car.
Can I use public transport, if not, why not. Can I hire a driver, if not, why not. Can i seek an office based position with the company I work for Can I change job to one that doesnt need a car And loads more….. Steve |
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 14:53
Post
#15
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 26 Feb 2012 Member No.: 53,387 |
SCTomkinson - Thanks that's helpful. How did your case end up? And did you use a law firm to represent you? I've spoken to a few this morning - one of which seemed genuine and was very helpful, he also quoted having won 21 out of 21 totting-up cases. £1800 total cost, which I plan to go with. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 15:10
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,194 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
£1800 is excessive.......for a simple hearing around £500-600 is usual! Try PMing BBlaw on here, he has done a few cases and has had good feedback.
Simon -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 9 Mar 2012 - 17:56
Post
#17
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 26 Feb 2012 Member No.: 53,387 |
Hearing went ahead yesterday - 400 fine, 2 week ban. It seems paying for the best legal representation paid off in my case. Yet Dixie - thanks for your advice.
|
|
|
Fri, 9 Mar 2012 - 18:24
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,189 Joined: 8 Feb 2011 From: Gloucestershire Member No.: 44,109 |
Damn good result!
-------------------- Edited as my IPhone thinks it knows best and changes my posts…
|
|
|
Fri, 9 Mar 2012 - 23:22
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
Hearing went ahead yesterday - 400 fine, 2 week ban. It seems paying for the best legal representation paid off in my case. Yet Dixie - thanks for your advice. Oooh Dixie is prone to getting it wrong from his bias point of view. -------------------- STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING
Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about. |
|
|
Sat, 10 Mar 2012 - 00:05
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10,460 Joined: 8 Sep 2008 Member No.: 22,424 |
Hearing went ahead yesterday - 400 fine, 2 week ban. It seems paying for the best legal representation paid off in my case. Yet Dixie - thanks for your advice. Oooh Dixie is prone to getting it wrong from his bias point of view. I'd say more balanced point of view. He's certainly gave balanced advice which helps the motorist more than the police many times on here before. Not exactly all pro-cops. I'd have to agree with what he said here- we are mid recession and as such managers and staff alike are easier to replace than ever. You got a damned good result. Certainly couldn't have asked for better than that! |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 08:35 |